Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Phox v. Boes

Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, First Division

February 23, 2016

LARONDA PHOX, Appellant,
v.
JOANN C. BOES, ET AL., Respondent

          APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI. THE HONORABLE S. MARGENE BURNETT, JUDGE.

         Laronda Phox, Appellant, Acting Pro-se.

         Steve. B. Broussard, for Respondent.

         Before Division One: Lisa White Hardwick, Presiding Judge, Victor C. Howard, Judge and Gary D. Witt, Judge. All concur.

          OPINION

         VICTOR C. HOWARD, J.

Page 921

          LaRonda Phox appeals the judgment of the trial court dismissing without prejudice her pro se complaint against Joann Boes for failure to state a cause of action. Ms. Phox asserts that the trial court erred in granting defendant Joann Boes's motion to dismiss. Finding that the trial court's judgment does not constitute a final judgment for purposes of appeal, this Court dismisses the appeal.

         Factual and Procedural Background

         According to the trial court's judgment granting Ms. Boes's motion to dismiss, the facts upon which Ms. Phox's claims are based were not articulated in the pleadings, and were only revealed to the court through her testimony at oral argument. Ms. Phox testified that she obtained a car title loan from one or more of the defendants, and the automobile securing the loan was repossessed, at which time she had not paid the loan amount in full.

         The trial court found that " even with substantial effort to construe the pleadings in a light most favorable to Plaintiff, it is unclear what facts are alleged to support any of the named causes of action." The court further contemplated that even if the facts to which she testified at the hearing could possibly support a cause of action for wrongful repossession, Ms. Phox would not be able to prevail on the claim, as she admittedly was in default on the loan at the time of repossession. The trial court concluded that " [a] close examination of Plaintiff's pleadings establishes that there has not been a viable cause of action [pled], and, therefore, Defendant's Motion must be GRANTED." This appeal by Ms. Phox followed.

         Standard of Review

         Our review of the trial court's judgment of dismissal is de novo. Lynch v. Lynch, 260 S.W.3d 834, 836 (Mo. banc 2008). " As a preliminary issue, however, a reviewing court has a duty to determine its jurisdiction sua sponte." Cramer v. Smoot, 291 S.W.3d 337, 338 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009). " An appeal will lie only from a final judgment disposing of all issues and all parties, leaving nothing for future consideration. Without a final judgment, an appellate court lacks jurisdiction, and the appeal must be dismissed." Id. at 339 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

         Discussion

         The trial court's order of June 26, 2014, indicates it dismissed the cause without prejudice. " Ordinarily, when an action is dismissed without prejudice, a plaintiff may cure the dismissal by filing another suit in the same court." Id. (quoting Osuji v. Mo. Dept. of Soc. Servs., Div. of Family Servs., 34 S.W.3d 251, 253 (Mo. App. E.D. 2000)). Thus, generally a dismissal without prejudice is not a final judgment and, therefore, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.